Hitler Bush


Bush used a misleading machine against any American who dared to voice his opposition to Iraq war just three years ago.  He is tuning up the same machine for a new unnecessary war against Iran.  The only difference is the pretext.  It is now the intention of a so called rogue regime and NOT a previous act of aggression because Iran has not invaded a single country for a quarter of a millennium.  What is also ignored is Article 1 of the General Principles of the Algiers Accords (January 1981), in which “the United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs." 


Not only this is a binding international treaty, but it is also protected by an American constitutional guarantee that all such agreements are treated as the law of the land.  Yet Bush has effectively used the 9/11 tragedy to consider himself above the law, and congress has no problem violating the constitution to fund Bush’s meddling with Iranian internal affairs that is designed to provoke ethnic violence.  Look at what happened to Soviet Union.  America is not only the superpower of the world, but also seeks a monopoly on unified states.  That is why most republicans love breaking apart other countries into small pieces.  The question is whether international treaties are worth anything under the New World Order.


Bush has learned it, the hard way, to place the burden of proving negative upon any nation that warmongers choose to apply the preemptive doctrine against it.  That is obvious enough, and despite the enormous media campaign to cover it up with nonsense, the whole world knows how desperate this administration is to create a more devastating crisis to shift the spot light from Iraq to Iran.  Well, maybe I should qualify this statement because there are always people who never wake up to a reality on the ground, but enjoy being bamboozled.


Make no mistake about it.  Bush is far worst than Hitler, and unless this vicious cycle is broken, his expanding militarism will not stop in Iran as it did not stop in Afghanistan.  Bush would love to attack Iran because of his failure in Afghanistan and in Iraq.  Remember this old English joke that politicians dig a hole in the ground for the sake of filling it back up, but because there is always some leftover dirt, they will have to dig a bigger hole!  Don’t laugh!* It is more a stupid tragedy than a joke.  The same gang of warmongers, who failed capturing Ben Laden in Afghanistan, invaded Iraq.  Now, the leftover mess is overwhelming, and they cannot explain it to American people.  So the best alternative is digging a bigger hole before Bush’s term of office is over!  It will work fine for the upcoming elections, and in Bush’s own words “future presidents” will have to figure out how to withdraw the troops!


Let’s take this nonsense on its face value.  Let’s assume the Islamic Republic of Iran is indeed intended to make the atomic bomb, and let’s further assume that the Bush administration is genuinely interested in the world peace and stability.  No matter how absurd it is to peruse diplomacy while pushing for a regime change, I would take the former as a good strategy.  However, let’s not forget the fact that American intelligence community believes this diplomacy is designed to FAIL.  Don’t take my word for it; take it from HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS Before the U.S. House of Representatives on April 5, 2006.  Obviously when diplomacy fails, Bush must take the next step.  That is why all options are on the table.  In fact, there are little options available when the giant statue of military might is ubiquitous.


So, the military strike is the only option left to get rid of all nuclear plants with minimum human casualties.  The last three words would make most Americans rally behind the messiah of our time: Mr. George W Bush!  What a wonderful and forgiving people are Americans.  They will forget about the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, and bless him with another chance.  Americans are, after all, the only legitimate people to decide the fate of other people.  Otherwise, if Bush was to represent Iraqis, as an example, the logic and democratic principles would have followed that Iraqis elect him for the job.  Did they participate in American presidential election?!


Obviously, Bush expects Iranians to trust him and forget about his fiasco in Iraq because according to O’Reilly Iraqis are not worth it!  Yet the so called international community has no problem with the known facilities that are under constant IAEA supervision 24/7.  And Iranians have already mastered the know how to enrich uranium.  So mullahs must have parallel facilities to do the job.  Thanks to still good American dollars, Bush has bought human intelligence to know where these secret facilities are located.  No, I am not talking about the infamous laptop!  I mean the targets for B2 bombers to do the job. 


There is only one question left unanswered.  Why Bush does not share this intelligence with IAEA to bring mullahs up to compliance?  The answer is rather obvious.  Such intelligence does not exist.  Just remember how he did it against Iraq.  It was simply planting the evidence.  Again, no, Bush did not plant WMD on Iraqi soil.  He planted the fear of a mushroom cloud in the minds of American people.  Since no empirical intelligence supports his desperate need to dig a bigger hole, he seeks the Goebbels’s propaganda machine, now sanctified to be called the media, for help.


What is indeed strange is the Iranian opposition taking the job of operating his propaganda machine against Iranians.  It refreshes my memory of reading about the like of British opposition who bombarded Britons, using mostly radio medium at the time, with Hitler’s propaganda machine in WWII.  The message was true that British lords enjoyed a lavish life style while common Britons were starving to death.  But the messengers were simply trying to replace the privileged British upper class with jackbooted Nazis having no respect whatsoever for the common Britons. 


In this great world of multiple standards, an outright act of treachery to one’s own people is no longer unthinkable!  Some British pawn minded Iranians proudly seek destruction of their own country in favor of imperialism.  For example, in his new article published in Telegraph on April 16, 2006, Mr. Amir Taheri meticulously uses religious beliefs and official rhetoric to create a bogus fear for a-bomb in the making.  I wrote an article on his exuberance in early days of Iraq war when I still respected him as a professional journalist.  No matter how his euphoria blinded his journalism to ignore the pounding reality on the ground, he never stopped favoring aggressors.  I am still amused reading such articles, but I wonder whether his like minded journalists are fiction writers or close minded pawns.  They violate the essential code of ethics in journalism not to state opinion as facts or to commingle the two. 


Is Mr. Taheri reporting a fact by “President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad … was having a khalvat (tête-à-tête) with the Hidden Imam” or it is simply his sarcastic opinion?  Even if it is a fact, how does Ahmadinejad’s personal belief and prayer differ from that of Bush or any other head of state for that matter?  Why it is alright for America to go half way around the world to protect her interests, but it is the crime of the century for Iran to do the same in a neighboring country or to help an oppressed people resisting annihilation. 


Even Mr. Taheri knows too well that a genuine conflict of interests exist in Iraq.  A peaceful and stable Iraq is a perfect neighbor for Iran.  It will also eliminate the justification for American military presence in the region.  Both of which serve Iran’s best interests.  On the other hand, USA built the largest political and military complex in Iraq for one, and only one, reason: that is to stay!  Besides having a close eye on Iran and the region, it is also a lucrative business for favored Halliburton and Bechtel for many years to come.  So where is the conflict of interests?



Mohamad Purqurian

April 18, 2006


* Here is the joke for laughter:  Said a man who was digging on a government job to the foreman: “I dug this hole where I was told to and began to put the dirt back like I was supposed to.  But all the dirt won’t go back in.  What should I do?”  For a long while the foreman pondered the problem.  Then:  “I have it.  There is only one thing to do.  You will have to dig a deeper hole”